Skip to main content
Glama

Data Ny

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Compare Entities

compare_entities
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Compare X and Y" / "X vs Y" / "X versus Y" / "which is bigger / better / larger / more profitable" / "rank these companies" / "head to head" — side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. type="company" pulls LATEST 10-K revenue + net income + cash + long-term debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL (off-calendar fiscal years handled correctly — AAPL Sep, NVDA Jan, etc.). type="drug" pulls FAERS adverse-event counts, FDA approval counts, active trial counts. Results sorted by primary metric so "largest" / "most" / "biggest" reads off the top of the response. Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity. Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valuesYesFor company: 2–5 tickers/CIKs (e.g., ["AAPL","MSFT"]). For drug: 2–5 names (e.g., ["ozempic","mounjaro"]).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond the annotations: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, result sorting by primary metric, and the return of paired data with citation URIs. This is rich context that goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases for selection, then explains behavior, type-specific data, output format, and efficiency. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains what the response looks like: results sorted by primary metric, paired data, and citation URIs. It also covers data sources, fiscal year handling, and the tool's advantage over sequential lookups. For a tool with only 2 parameters, this is a complete and self-contained description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already thoroughly describes both parameters (type and values) with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining what metrics each type pulls and giving concrete examples, which helps the agent decide how to populate the values. It does not introduce syntax beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly preferring it over sequential single-pack lookups, and specifies the exact metrics for each entity type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger'), a direct preference instruction ('ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups'), and type-specific guidance ('type="company" pulls...', 'type="drug" pulls...'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Data Ny toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim have overlapping functionality in answering factual questions. The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, though some confusion may still arise.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity). No mixing of camelCase or other styles, making the naming predictable and uniform.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the higher side, but many are meta-tools (discover, feedback, subscriptions) and some are redundant (ask_pipeworx vs grounded). While the scope is broad, the count could be trimmed for tighter focus.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, etc.) with strong read and analysis capabilities. Missing update/delete operations and direct trading, but comprehensive for data retrieval and analysis.

Resources